well, westerners in general (and americans in particular) aren't exactly garden munchers today. we eat TONS of meat. i dunno how it compares to days of yore, but i'd be surprised if it was less. so psycomonkey's argument is not only nonsensical but based on a false premise.

We eat a hell of a lot more meat nowadays. In the middleages, for an average peasant family, you were lucky if you had a small chunk of salted meat anywhere near regularly.

And they only ate twice a day, AFAIR from history class.

But did they live longer? Hell no. Our average lifespan is much longer than it ever was, and is increasing by something like a year every decade.

But there's no direct causal relationship in that. In the old days, they probably had a lot more malnutrition than us due to limited availability of food from every part of the piramid in most places, but they also didn't have our hygiene and medical advances. Or the same amounts of conservatives in food.

However, we probably would all be healthier if we ate less meat.
-Less cattle means less agriculture, means less agriculture-induced pollution.
-Less meat means less cardiovascular diseases, which are a luxury disease of the past century when food and wealth (=more affordable meat) became plentiful in the West.
-There are some claims that eating lots of meat causes agression. So less meat would be less violence-induced deaths. (And spuriously: less agression=less unhappyness=less psychosomatic illnesses; but this is just conjecture)

I myself try to eat less meat. I'm not going for abstinence, because I'm too lazy to work out a balanced diet without meat, and I like the taste too much to give it up.

I have however mostly given up eating fish for the reason most fisheries are getting depleted by overfishing, and not eating fish is the only thing an individual can realistically do against it. Which is unfortunate, because eating fish is really really healthy, and yummy.

Ehh, I can't find any reputable source on it at the moment, but 've heard once or twice it was mainly red meat that was the culprit. I don't know if there's any merit to it however. Evolutionary, it could make sense if tribes that subsided on hunting became more aggressive, as oppossed to tribes that had more berries to pick.

editedit: I could've been wrong concerning aggression and meat-eating. Vegetarians should be more violent on the basis of testosterone levels:

Quote:

A Man’s Behavior Contradicts His Anatomy

Men traditionally have been the hunters who carry back the slain animals to feed the village – you know, “they bring home the bacon.” Scientific research confirms meat is viewed as a superior masculine food. The acts of killing, butchering and eating animals are associated with power, aggression, virility, strength, and passion – attributes desired by most men – and eating meat has long been associated with aggressive behaviors and violent personalities. Men say they need more, and they do eat more meat, especially more red meat, than women. However, based on male anatomy, real men should be vegetarians.

Human males have seminal vesicles – no other meat-eating animal has these important collecting-pouches as part of their reproductive anatomy. The seminal vesicles are paired sacculated pouches connected to the prostate, located at the base of the bladder. They collect fluids made by the prostate that nourish and transport the sperm. Ejaculation occurs when the seminal vesicles and prostate empty into the urethra of the penis. In many ways ejaculation is the ultimate act of male performance – seminal vesicles are essential organs for proper male function and therefore, they should tell us much about his true nature.

His Aberrant Behavior Ruins His Potency

Eating meat diminishes sexual performance and masculinity. The male hormone testosterone that determines sexual development and interest has been found to be 13 % higher in vegans (a strict plant diet – no animal products of any kind) than in meat-eaters. Meat-eaters are likely to become impotent because of damage caused to the artery system that supplies their penis with the blood that causes an erection. Erectile dysfunction is more often seen in men with elevated cholesterol levels and high levels of LDL “bad” cholesterol– both conditions related to habitual meat-eating.

The greatest threat to a man’s virility is from the high levels of environmental chemicals concentrated in modern meats of all kinds. These chemicals interfere with the actions of testosterone. Decreased ejaculate volume, low sperm count, shortened sperm life, poor sperm motility, genetic damage, and infertility result from eating meat with estrogen-like environmental chemicals. These chemicals in the meat, eaten by his mother, influence the development of the male fetus, increasing the risk that the baby boy will be born with a smaller penis and testicles, as well as deformity of the penis (hypospadia) and an undescended testicle (cryptorchism). Estimates are 89% to 99% of the chemical intake into our body is from our food, and most of this is from foods high on the food chain – meat, poultry, fish, and dairy products.

that is an interesting collection of factoids but the excerpt, at least, seems curiously disjointed.

Particularly the bit about seminal vesicles -- it leaves me curious about what the related context is... what's the connection to aggression, or even meat consumption; do many herbivors have the structure, or is it actually a very specialized piece of anatomy (like opposable thumbs?)?

the part about cholesterol and chemicals strike me as artifacts of modern life and luxury vs. subsistance eating, rather than conclusive observations regarding special diet.

likewise, without context the bit about vegans could be a misuse of statistic that puts the horse before the cart (ie, do people with high testosterone tend to choose veganism more often than others, rather than the other way around?)

-- the 'heimlich maneuver' has little to do with the structure of the teeth and more to do with poor habits rather than chewing ability.

-- consider that "CHOKING" rarely occur unless you improperly swallow something, thus aspirating and clogging the windpipe -- which can, in fact, occur with vegetables or marbles as easily as with the evil flesh of an animal. it's not what you are eating, it's how.

-- consider that many "true carnivors" don't actually much chew at all...they don't have the right teeth for it. they swallow torn chunks whole. thus, his point about choking, if it had any merit (which i doubt), would have more to do with the structure of the throat, not the teeth. (we use fire and knives in place of pointy, pointy fangs, you know)

-- consider that, if a lion were actually to aspirate a big chunk of zebra, his "canines" would not be all that much help to him then, and he'd be shit out of luck without opposable thumbs.

besides that, i don't know what flavor sugar water he used to brush his teeth as a child, but if the gumdrops in his mouth weren't actually damaged to the point that they were too soft to chew meat, i bet his mother was serving overcooked mutton and calling it 'roast beef'.

in other words -- if this fellow has a point to make, i have a strong suspicion that he has no clue what that might be.

the part about cholesterol and chemicals strike me as artifacts of modern life and luxury vs. subsistance eating, rather than conclusive observations regarding special diet.

Yeah, it struck me that it is more all the junk food (and processed convenience food) we eat, rather then the meat we eat that increases our cholesterol and heart disease so much._________________"Her kisses left something to be desired -- the rest of her. "

PS: how does '5 servings of bread a day' work out? 5 slices of bread? 5 baquettes? 5 loafs?

depends on the type of bread - usually one slice, or half a large bagel. it strikes me that it might be about 1 oz of bread, but i could be wrong (read the label, it will tell you how large a serving is).

another thing about meat in the modern diet - we have changed a lot about the animals we are eating. grain-fed cattle (the modern feed-lot type) tend to have more (and, if i recall correctly, nastier) fat than grass-fed ones. but you can get them fattened up more quickly on grain, so most of the beef we eat is grown that way. same with other animals - chickens and pigs used to forage around, so they ate a broader diet (which did not tend to include their conspecifics), and were leaner.

as were we ourselves. we get far less exercise than our ancestors. people used to do a lot more walking and lifting and climbing of stairs and the like, because they didn't have things like cars and elevators and rolling bags. so they were storing less of the fat they ate._________________aka: neverscared!